Asymmetrical Information

Megan, thank you, thank you, thank you. This is one of the two points that I was trying to make all day in yesterday's comments. Since the first headlines evincing this theory (which included most of them the first day after the election) I have said that the theory that this election was stolen by the evangelicals (all of whom are mindless Karl Rove robots) was too simplistic and would stop the Democrats from going through a periof of self-examination which would be crucial to seeing them perform better in two years.

Also, I always enjoy differing viewpoints as they lead you to re-examine and challenge your own perspectives. However, I was actually taken aback yesterday by some of the hateful invective levelled against evangelical Christians. These are a group of people that, ironically enough, much like the gay community, I've never felt are particularly threatening.

I work with some evangelical Christians and they are all warm, reasonable people. As far as I can tell, they live their lives, hold fast to their faith, and seem completely unconcerned about the boozing, bed-hopping and, yes, gay people with whom they spend their days. They might disagree with lifestyles, but they certainly treat individuals with respect.

(1) I'm pretty sure Mr. Dreck isn't Megan, but then I periodically suspect that he is, and the whole "two blogger" thing is a front.

(2) I'm pleased that you've never felt particularly threatened by either gays or evangelical Christians, especially since I share your distaste for the habit (on both sides of the political spectrum) to paint the opposition with one clumsy brush. Myself, I've never felt threatened by gays, but I have felt threatened by evangelical Christians, especially when they were angrily threatening me with hellfire and damnation for not feeling threatened by gays. All the evangelicals you know might be warm and fuzzy, but that doesn't mean there aren't lots of hateful ones, any more than the fact that all the gay people I've known have been reasonable and kind means there aren't any who despise "breeders."

(3) I think it's a little much to be taking the left to task for "Confirmation Bias" here. " 'Morality' won the election" was a meme that was quite popular and seemed to explain the data in hand for about two-three days, before the data was more closely examined and cooler heads reported that in fact it seemed "'Morality' helped win the election, but not much more than 'the war on terror' was." The liberal side of the blogosphere is already modifying its initial reaction and within a week will undoubtedly have reached this (gasp) more nuanced position. If you're looking to slap a charge of egregious Confirmation Bias on a group of people, I might look at oh, say, the interpretation of WMD-related intelligence leading up to the war in Iraq.

Bush won with 51% of the vote. That's only 3% more than Kerry.

That 51% includes many kinds of voters. It is a coalition of different views and values. Some voted for moral reasons, others for tax reasons, others for the WoT.

When you win by such a small margin any subgroup greater than the margin can be characterized as having won the election. If Kerry had done better among other groups he would have won even despite the 'moral' vote. It is simplistic to say that the moral vote in general won the election for Bush but it is equally wrong to say it didn't help.

Moral values voters are not a monolithic group. Many of them voted for Kerry. In fact, in OH, more than 25% of Kerry's votes came from people that voted against gay marriage. Kerry got a lot of anti gay votes.

But what is clear is that moral issues help the GOP more than they do Dems. In a tight election this makes a difference.

Let me first say that I know many reasonable, intelligent and thoughtful Democrats who simply came to a different conclusion than I did in this year's election. I think the topic of bias on the left, though, applies to many well known Democrats who have been outspoken in the last couple of days.

Case in point. I was channel surfing last night and I came to Hannity and Colmes on Fox. (I swear to you, gentle reader, I am not a regular watcher. If I watch Sean Hannity for too long, I start breaking out in hives.) Their guest was Geraldine Ferrara. I missed the larger context of the conversation and was just in time to hear her say, "If the blue states seceded, (Gee, I didn't know that was an option)what would be left? Nothing. I mean, all the trade, all the talent would be gone. Nothing would be left."

Ah, the arrogant hubris of the native New Yorker. Because as we all know, the entire region between New York and California, excluding Minnesota, Michigan and Wisconsin, all apparently too far north to be poisened by our primitive ways, and coincedentally often voting Democratic, is entirely populated by club toting, raw meat eating cave dwellers.

Here's an old Irish blessing for you, Geraldine. May your cross country flight have to put down in Omaha. May you be entirely surrounded by regular watchers of Hannity and Colmes. May they not be evangelical Christians whose religion would, doubtless, prevent them from treating you with the contempt you deserve. And thank you for making my point.

Have to go now. Karl Rove mind chip enabled. Must obey. Must obey.

Cathy,

Although Ferraro clearly exaggerated, the blue states are richer than the red ones and the blue areas in red states are richer than the state as a whole.

Blue states in general subsidize red states which are net recipients of government spending.

As Daniel Gross put it on a related point:

In decades past, increasing Republican dominance of the House and Senate would have meant more fiscal discipline. But Republicans increasingly dominate the states that are net drains on Federal taxes—the Southern and Great Plains states—while fading in the coastal states that produce a disproportionate share of federal revenue. (It's Republicans, not Democrats, who are sucking on the federal teat.) What Amity Shlaes quaintly identified in today's Financial Times as the "southern culture of tax cutting" has been married to the southern culture of failing to generate wealth and the southern culture of depending on federal largesse. The offspring is an unsightly deficit monster.

Regarding the Commentariat bandwidth problem, here's one possible solution: Alter the code so that when a person accesses the comments, they only download comments posted in the last, say, 36 hours, along with a link indicating that there are earlier comments not being displayed (if applicable). That way, when regular posters return to continue a conversation, they need not reload the entire thing if they've already read most of it.

Alternatively, just cookie each user, and if s/he returns to a comment thread, s/he only downloads the final five messages of all s/he has previously accessed (ideally, identified as such -- different font color, maybe?), plus any new material. Again, if s/he actually needs to see more, there would be an "expand me" link available, which would open the entire thread as normal.

Not sure how much these would help, but if you have the administration options available or a web dev who can code it in, it sure couldn't hurt.

Also, just a double-check, have you enabled GZIP for the site? Most browsers will support downloading of compressed HTML, and it is coveniently invisible to the user; if the user's browser support it, it is used automatically for a bandwidth savings on your server. That is, IF it is enabled server-side.

Brooks is a silly, silly man. The argument appears to be that the liberal media, in order to affirm its' moral superiority, is responsible for heaping blame on an imagined voting demographic. The demographic wasn't simply a liberal hallucination. On Tuesday, Rush Limbaugh reassured listeners of Republican moral superiority while denigrating the lack of Democratic virtue. He even claimed Dems wanted to abolish morality. On a roll, Limbaugh started heaping blame on liberal elitists. I see reference to this supposed demographic everywhere (opposite page, for example). But isn't the notion of "liberal, tree-hugging, elitist, latte-drinking, Bush-bashers" just as erroneous as the supposed liberal perception of an "Archie Bunker, gay bashing" conservative? Aren't both equally damaging?
If, as Brooks claims, the media assures "liberals that they are morally superior", why did they fail so miserably in campaign coverage? Over a week ago, Bill Moyers broke the story that the information that lead us into Iraq was deliberately misquoted and distorted by the administration. Not a whisper of self-congratulation from the liberal media. Nor that Kerry peaceful supporters were dragged out of Bush campaign stops by their hair - an obvious slam drunk for a liberal press that could question Bush's tolerance and reinforce their wonderful, accepting nature.
For that matter, why did Kerry's quote concerning Mary Cheny get so much negative coverage? This would have been another obvious score for our compassionate liberal press, wouldn't it? And why did Bush's lies during the debates get so little press? The "I never said I wasn't concerned about Osama bin Laden" or the "my tax cuts primarily benefitted the middle class" quotes disappeared into the ether, while "liberals" bashed Kerry for his loose tongue. Similarly, Bush's religious virtue went unquestioned (remember, god told him to invade Iraq) while the image of Kerry as a flip-flopping eliist persisted. And most importantly, no one asked why many of Bush's constituents support a politician contrary to their apparent economic self interest.
It is unfortunate that many of us jumped to the conclusion that evangelicals won the election for Bush. But the greater travesty remains that honest debate in our country has disappeared. The campaigns, on both sides, were incredibly misleading. And our press did little to sort them out for us. The result is, that as a whole, we are badly misinformed. Look at the surveys of www.papi.org. The results are nothing short of terrifying.

Mindles:

The media is misplaying the "values" card to explain the election - shocker. This isn't the first time in the last four years that the media chose easy and sensationalistic over patient and credible (remember "Iraq has WMD. The horror. The horror"?). But dismissing entirely the pundits who harp on this theme throws out too much. They are wrong on the specifics, but right on the worrisome broad strokes.

The counter-analysis you cite essentially says that the "values" voter that the Democrats have demonized voted in states that are already solidly red; they didn't change the election because they were the base that voted for W before. It was a group of other voters, like yourself, who joined with them to give W his majority. But it's that which worries blue voters. People who have roughly the same outlook on life as we do, people who vote in "blue Republicans" like Giuliani and Schwarzenegger and Weld and (as I understand it) Tommy Thompson, made common cause with people who hold vastly different values. (I am at least an order of magnitude more worried about nearly losing Wisconsin, Minnesota, and Michigan, about losing Iowa and Ohio, than about not having a chance in the South. We lost the South in 1964; it was an acceptable loss then, and remains one today).

Y'all ("purple voters?") voted for a President who was, in his first term, demonstrably closer to those "red state" values than to those of most blue staters. (If the analysis you cite doesn't confirm this, it certainly doesn't disallow it). We thought once we pointed out all the things that don't seem in keeping with our"blue" traditions (mistaken Iraq policy (in either sense), Padilla, growing deficits, religious overtones in govt., no clear policy analysis, Abu Gharib, "outsourcing terror," etc.), in the end, in the dark of the voting booth, you wouldn't be able to do a deal with the red staters. That you were is deeply troubling, because (to us) it looks like the terms suck.

For example: as sort of a back of the envelope sketch, 9/11 was immediately caused by 20 guys with access to something like maybe 200K in credit (plane tix, box cutters, etc.). IIRC, half of those guys didn't know what the real mission was - they thought it was a straight hijacking. Let's assume that, as of now, all 20 would have to be suicidal, and so would an infrastructure of another 80 guys, to attempt another attack in the US. Using attacks in pre-wall Israel as an example (not a great proxy, but good numbers aren't easily Inet-able), per 26 suiciders/yr/ 4 mil. Palestinian population, with an Arab population of 280 million (expected to be 400 mil. in 15 years), we (at current rates) get 1820 suiciders a year - which should be a sufficient number to keep mounting 9/11 style attacks for a while. (Numbers are quick and dirty, and could be wrong). We need to reduce the Arab population to about 1/20th its size if war and killing is our preferred method of security. I'm really not making a moral point here - if we have to do that, we have to do that; I'm noting that we presently don't have the will to do that. If the assumption is that constant war on the 26/4 mil. "islamofascists" is the only way to stop 9/11-style attacks, then we're going to have constant war for a long, long time. Which means that you purple voters are going to do the same deal with the red staters for a long, long time. And I, as a blue voter (and more purple than anything else - I supported Giuliani), do not want to live the rest of my life (say 50 years) under the terms of that deal.

Let's take federalism seriously, and let most rights devolve to the states. We (blue staters, liberals, whatever) will feel like we are throwing sizeable portions of the red state minority (not used as a synonym for race) population under the bus, but at least we'll preserve blue state values and they'll have a place that they can hopefully move to if they want.

So, Blue staters want to seceed or to just not buy from Red states. Let them! Me, a red stater, I can eat the wheat and cattle I produce. Maybe the Blue staters could eat the paper they push, Oh wait, I produce that too.

And what about those pesky BMW's and Mercedes that the elitists like to drive? Damn, they're made in South Carolina and Alabama.

Well, I guess all those narcistic single Manhattanites could continue to indulge their smoking addiction while berating all those dumb Red staters. Oops, I produce that too. I guess they will all just have to switch to Gallois.

Yes, I am aware of the counter arguments, I though am not the one putting forth these ridiculous proposals about seceeding or patronizing ideological compatiable business and industry.

Folks, take a look at these--

The so-called "American Taliban":
http://jakking.typepad.com/daily/files/american_taliban.pdf

or

http://tinyurl.com/63rac

http://jakking.typepad.com/daily/2004/11/so_what_now.html

or

http://tinyurl.com/5rndm

And if, at this point, moral equivalence between American religous and the Taliban merely amounts to an annoying cliche, then perhaps you should also check out this blogger, who dismisses Bush supporters as "Batterred Wives":

http://blogs.salon.com/0002007/2004/11/03.html#a934

or

http://tinyurl.com/4a9x3

That particular link above is pretty imaginative--those of us who voted for Bush are Batterred Wives! Imagine that. And I'd thought I'd heard everything. It's a new low--and yet brilliant as propaganda!

I wrote that Limbaugh got going on Tuesday. I wasn't thinking. The old Rushbo got going on Wednesday and Thursday- after the election- applauding the moral clarity of the right. This probably makes me as silly as Brooks

Joe,

We (the blue states) are richer and produce more. That's why we need to subsidize you, specially the backwards South. And the more productive and dynamic areas of the red states tend to be blue.

GT,

I hope your smugness makes a satisfying meal. I suspect that it will leave your body and spirit wanting however.

Next time you look at that red/blue map on a county by county basis it will become glaringly obvious to you. The rural areas produce the crops that you eat, they also produce the troops that defend you while you sleep in your comfortable oblivousness.

Me, I have faith in all the American people. And to those who think they are superior because of some quirk of geography or simply because their parents fucked there, I will retell the story of the Texas ranch hand who replied when asked "Where is your Master?".

"Mister, that sum bitch ain't been born yet."

Joe:

I can buy my cars from Mexico and my meat from Argentina. And though I have great respect for the people who choose to serve in the military, the people primarily responsible for keeping me safe are those MIT, Stanford, and CalTech (and Rice and GaTech) engineers who allow us to project our force so remarkably.

GT said:

>We (the blue states) are richer and produce more. That's why >we need to subsidize you, specially the backwards South. And >the more productive and dynamic areas of the red states tend >to be blue.

You don't do your/my/our side of this discussion any favors by calling the South backwards. But other than that, I agree.

Joe Bagadonuts said:

>I hope your smugness makes a satisfying meal. I suspect that it >will leave your body and spirit wanting however.
>Next time you look at that red/blue map on a county by county >basis it will become glaringly obvious to you. The rural areas >produce the crops that you eat, they also produce the troops >that defend you while you sleep in your comfortable >oblivousness.

Oh ferchrissakes...I acknowledge that our military is disproportionately from states that tend to vote republican, and that the states which make my food tend to do the same. But if these states are so self-sufficient, why do they tend to draw much more federal funding than they pay in taxes, while "blue" states tend to do the opposite? This whole "we shold secede - wait, you can't secede, WE should secede!" discussion is crap. There aren't that many states that could conceivably go entirely self-sufficient without significantly altering their way of life; California is probably the leading contender. At this point in history I'd say the states need each other to get along, and anything else is empty posturing.

It's worth reminding the landed gentry, as I did in an earlier post, that the 'blue states' still contain plenty of red voters, many of whom are doing OK in the income department (and vice versa). Time to look at that 55-45 vote and reconsider these broad generalizations.

Blue areas also tend to be urban, so the comments about wealth may simply be a spurious correlation to the skewed wealth distribution of urban areas. They contain both the richest and the poorest areas of the country.

At any rate I'm always glad to see somebody grumbling about wealth redistribution.

Also, I think GT's comments about assembling a coalition are on target. One can say that either leg of a three-legged stool is critical to keeping it upright.

GT: "Although Ferraro clearly exaggerated, the blue states are richer than the red ones and the blue areas in red states are richer than the state as a whole... Blue states in general subsidize red states which are net recipients of government spending."

First, this has been generally true for the last 600 or so years in western Europe and the Americas -- cities are richer than the surrounding countryside. Yet we are all in this together -- cities can't feed themselves, frequently can't provide adequate supplies of drinking water, generate the power they consume, etc. So figuring out how to deal with this wealth disparity is no different than other disparities that society must figure out.

Second, some of the transfer of federal funds can be explained as simple common sense. Many red states contain extensive military facilities. It is not practical to decide to create a million acre army base in Massachusetts and station 85,000 troops there. Or to build missile silos, an obvious military target, in areas near large cities. But there's no way that North Dakota is going to fund all of those silos out of its tax base.

Third, some of the wealth of the blue states is a pricing phenomenon. If I build a four-bedroom house in some of the California suburbs, it's "worth" $1.4M. If I build exactly the same house in one of the Denver suburbs, it's worth $350K. And if I build it in Kearney, Nebraska, it's only worth $175K. Plumbers in Manhatten, NY charge far more to clean a clogged toilet than they do in Manhatten, KS. Any comparison of the per-capita income or wealth in the different states must consider such pricing differences.

GT
I suspect you are making a simple mistake of aggregation when you point out that the blue states are richer than the red states.

Let's delve a little deeper into the data. Within the blue states I would expect that most of the highest earners vote Republican. Conversely, pretty much all of the votes from illegal immigrants, felons, welfare moms, inner city car thieves and the unemployed would naturally go to the Democrats.

You can take comfort in the fact that your blue states have a higher concentration of rich people dragging up your average. But don't get too comfortable - over time many of those people and the companies they work for are slowly moving out to the red states (the South is certainly more populous, wealthy and cosmopolitan than it was 20 years ago, for instance). Hence the 7 extra electoral college votes that Bush started with before the contest even started.

If the blue states were to somehow secede, many of those highly productive people would flee their new socialist paradise for the red states. I suspect that many of us would be curious to see the consequence of that kind of experiment.

Slightly OT from Brooks, but Megan, I'd just like to say that I love the way you set up your Amazon page, and I think it's a great model for other bloggers as they gather an audience (and have to pay for bandwidth).

It doesn't matter that Democratic states tend to be wealthier than Republican states. Republicans as individuals still have higher incomes than Democrats. You're dead wrong, GT, to suggest that Democratic taxpayers tend to subsidize Republicans.

No one that I have read claim evangelicals to be the only reason for Kerrys defeat. But it certainly is the largest. First, in an election that featured 911, WoT, Iraq, and an economy most voters said was "bad", the biggest issue voted on in this election ended up being "values". Another reason the evangelical vote is percieved to be the biggest part of the Bush win is because Rove said it was. The centerpiece of his election strategy was to get four million more evangelical votes then Bush got in 2000. Considering Bush won by about three million votes, it seems Rove had it right. Also consider that the most popular reps, Arnold and Rudy G, are polar opposites from jr for the values crowd. So if the dems are somehow out of touch values wise, so are the most popular reps. Bush is the only major political figure the evangelicals would support this overwhelmingly, unless you consider Ashcroft or P Robertson major political figures. The only thing the dems need to change, is to hold reps as accountable as reps hold dems accountable for failure.

Another refutation of the prevailing meme, this time in a "fisking" of New York Times foreign correspondent and marquee pundit Thomas Friedman:

http://paragraphfarmer.blogspot.com/2004/11/straw-men-crossing.html

Well, the one really really big number I see that won the election - the GOP party share went from 45% of the votes cast last time to 47% this time.

2000 electorate breakdown of party id - 39D/35R/27I - 101.3 million voters - 38.5 million/34.5 million/27.5 million.
2004 electorate breakdown of party id - 37D/37R/26I - 115.5 million voters - 42.5 million/42.5 million/30 million.

Looks like "the Democrats upped their turnout, but the Republicans upped theirs even more." Bush's overall share of Democratic id voters stayed the same, 11%. His share of independents went up 1 point - he only lost them by 1 point nationwide this time, for a net vote gain of 300,000. His share of Republicans went up 2 points - gain of 850,000 votes.

And he won by 3.5 million - which is an improvement of 4 million over his 500,000 loss last time - so that's 3 million votes he gained *just by GOP turnout*. The party identification percentages stayed the same between 2000 & 2004 - and the Democrats actually outran the GOP in new registrations - so Bush won through GOP turnout. Only question is what got them to the polls.

I thought the Democratic turnout operation was mind-blowingly good - but good god, we only got 4 million new ones out there. Bush managed double that.

How was the election won? Ask those 8 million new GOP voters.

Well, the one really really big number I see that won the election - the GOP party share went from 45% of the votes cast last time to 47% this time.

2000 electorate breakdown of party id - 39D/35R/27I - 101.3 million voters - 38.5 million/34.5 million/27.5 million.
2004 electorate breakdown of party id - 37D/37R/26I - 115.5 million voters - 42.5 million/42.5 million/30 million.

Looks like "the Democrats upped their turnout, but the Republicans upped theirs even more." Bush's overall share of Democratic id voters stayed the same, 11%. His share of independents went up 1 point - he only lost them by 1 point nationwide this time, for a net vote gain of 300,000. His share of Republicans went up 2 points - gain of 850,000 votes.

And he won by 3.5 million - which is an improvement of 4 million over his 500,000 loss last time - so that's 3 million votes he gained *just by GOP turnout*. The party identification percentages stayed the same between 2000 & 2004 - and the Democrats actually outran the GOP in new registrations - so Bush won through GOP turnout. Only question is what got them to the polls.

I thought the Democratic turnout operation was mind-blowingly good - but good god, we only got 4 million new ones out there. Bush managed double that.

How was the election won? Ask those 8 million new GOP voters what got them to the polls this time. I'm betting it wasn't terrorism, and it wasn't Iraq.

Not that I think all of 'em are homophobes; the "moral values" category covers all sorts of class resentment of the values popular culture is trying to impose on them.

I agree with anonymouse's comment about reducing the comment bandwidth. I've often wished that blogs would use cookies to keep a place-mark in the comments, so I don't have to manually search for the first new one. I hadn't thought that there could be a bandwidth advantage, too.

As for "moral values", I am an atheist, I am in the 1/3 of Michiganders that voted against the marriage amendment, I don't think the government should be able to say with whom or how adults may have sex or marry, and I voted for Bush this time. I could first vote in 1972, and I voted for a third party because Nixon was scum and McGovern was nuts. 2004 was only the second time I've voted for either major party presidential candidate. Like the first time, it was because the other candidate really scared me.

And what is scary about Kerry is a complete lack of moral values, or of any values at all except for more power and money. He hung out with the Kennedies as a kid. He used his Vietnam tour to get medals for later political use - to stack the medals up that fast, either he was hotdogging it like General Custer, or he was using political influence to ram false reports through. When he got home and discovered the war was unpopular in Massachusetts, he transformed into a rabid anti-war activist and slandered all American soldiers. Morally, but not legally, he's a traitor. He's made a career of marrying heiresses. He lied repeatedly during the campaign. For instance, he has played up to the Mass. gun-fearing wussies throughout his 20 years in the Senate, but now he claims to be a hunter and for gun rights. (And he lies so lamely - a skeet-shooting photo op where he's handling his shotgun unsafely, can't carry his own dead goose, the "Chinese assualt rifle" faux pau.)

And he's supported by a pack of pathological liars, many of whom are pretending to be journalists.

I wouldn't trust a gigolo with an important job. I dislike and distrust liars. I will not have a traitor nor a hot-dogging General Custer type as my son's Commander-in-Chief. If these aren't moral issues, what is?

Markm,

Pot meet kettle. Kettle meet pot.

Kerry is somehow worse than chickenhawk Bush? At least Kerry was in the line of fire. Dislike and distrust liars? And Bush somehow doesn't qualify? I had friends die for his lies about Iraq.

In any event, the election is over, life continues just the way it did a week ago and I have to put groceries on the table.

markm: A tip of the hat to my fellow (former, in my case) Michigander...

I saw a quote this morning that, I think, is very informative.

"It's a national tragedy," he said. "This election is devastating to all who believe in democracy."

"And why did Bush's lies during the debates get so little press? The "I never said I wasn't concerned about Osama bin Laden" or the "my tax cuts primarily benefitted the middle class" quotes disappeared into the ether, while "liberals" bashed Kerry for his loose tongue."

First of all, Osama bin Laden was a huge threat on 9/11, when he had an effective organization for carrying out attacks and an unwillingness to stay in his sandbox like other groups had traditionally done. He was much less of a threat after much of his organization, including a large fraction of his top lieutenants, assumed room temperature.

Second of all, the tax cut was across the board. That pretty much requires that the rich get more dollars in tax cuts than the middle class. But isn't the whole theory of progressive taxation predicated on the notion that the rich won't miss larger amounts of money as much as the middle class will miss much smaller amounts of money? If so, it works the other way too - a smaller sum of money will benefit the middle class more than a larger sum of money will benefit the rich.

At any rate, Bush did give a nice tax break to the middle class, and telling us he did so is not a lie.

"Similarly, Bush's religious virtue went unquestioned (remember, god told him to invade Iraq)"

Got a quote for that? And if you're going to question his religious virtue, perhaps you've got something to support it, or perhaps even an actual question?

"while the image of Kerry as a flip-flopping eliist persisted."

Yeah, accurate images tend to persist like that.

"And most importantly, no one asked why many of Bush's constituents support a politician contrary to their apparent economic self interest. "

Because there's nothing the least bit strange about supporting a politician who isn't going to give you other people's money, even when he runs against a candidate or party that promises to give you lots of other people's money. Sure, voting for the guy that will give you lots of other people's money is in your "apparent economic self interest", but some people do like to be able to look at themselves in the mirror.

That falls under the heading of "moral values" which is not a synonym for "homophobia".

If the blue staters would start opposing high taxes and transfer payments they would not have to subsidize the red states anymore. They are getting what they support and are complaining about the results...

Ken, Turkey, Spain, Bali, Iraq, Riyaddah, Yeman, Egypt, etc, would disagree with your characterization of UBL. Beyond that, you ignored the fact Bush lied about his comments to UBL in the debates, and it sounded like he was coached up by his daughters for his delivery of the word "exaggerations".

Over 80% of the tax cut dollars went to the top 2% of earners. Its incredible that the reps now completely ignore debt to give the uppermost 2% of earners more money back. Your sad, greedy and pathetic, he didnt give anyone "their" money back, he threw it all on the tab that we all have to pay.

Begbee,

Deficit math is very simple.

Taxes - spending = deficit or surplus.

Notice the deficit is determined by two things taxes and SPENDING. I would take "liberals" new found concern about the deficit more seriously if they would come up with some ideas for cutting spending.

TJIT,
Exactly how are liberals responsible for coming up with cutting spending ideas? You guys have the presidency and both houses of congress. Have had it for two years now and the deficit keeps going up. The GOP congress has shown no desire to enact net spending cuts and in fact, spends like a drunken W.

TJIT the last two dem terms holding the Presidency were fiscally responsible. jr spends like a rich kid that got his trust fund to early in life. There is no way any dem President would have proposed ANY TAX CUTS in the face of 911, WoT, the oil grab in Iraq, Dept of HD, etc. The tax cuts were planned before any of these events took place, how can you ignore very expensive new events and not change your fiscal policy? Easy, when your a rep, the tax cuts are the starting point, the reasons for the tax cuts are the rationalizations of any event(s) used to push the tax cuts through.

Ken-

At what point did I question Bush's religion? I just said that the press seemed reluctatnt to discuss it. The stuff about Iraq, Bush and god comes from Woodward. I also said that the press was interested in other matters when Bush lied about Osama bin Laden and his tax cuts during the debates.

Let me attempt to address your concerns. During the third debate Bush said that he had "never said he wasn't concerned about Osama bin Laden. That's one of those exaggerations". He clearly did say it in a press conference about six months after claiming he wanted Bin Laden dead or alive. The issue isn't Bin Laden's importance, but Bush lying about what he said during the debates.

The tax cuts were not across the board. Rich people benefitted more than poorer people. (I got $19). It's that simple.

Since you brought it up, let me ask why we accept Bush as a man of faith. First of all, he attends church less than Clinton. On the other hand he is responsible for killing 100,000 civilians in Iraq. He is responsible for his administration lying to the country about WMDs. He is responsible for underfunding NCLB to the tune of $20 billion and leaving lots of children behind. And failing to extend unemployment benefits for a lot of workers through a slumping economy. During Christmas.

More importantly, doesn't the Bible say that you will be judged by how you treat the least among you? How did Bush do in that arena? Besides, didn't Jesus forgive adulters and murderers? But Bush spent less time than any other governor (ever) reviewing invididual death penalty appeals in Texas.

You mentioned that Kerry you agreed with the image of Kerry found in much of our media. Here's what I'm saying: Kerry's flip-flops as a Senator gained a lot of attention, Bush's as Prez did not. And Bush flip-flopped quite a bit. (On the Department of Homeland Security, the 9/11 Commission and civil unions, to name a few). Kerry did too. The most cited was the "I voted for the 87 billion before voting against it". But no one mentioned that he voted on two separate provisions of one bill, voting against the same one Bush threatened to veto.

While the press painted Kerry as a rich elitist, they ignored that Bush is from New England and also happens to come from an extremely wealthy family.

Now let me try your claim about economic interests: if you have every visited a library, attended a public school or driven on a freeway, you've enjoyed the fruits of someone else's tax money. But I bet you look at yourself in the mirror everyday. And it isn't just the money we're "handing out" I'm referring to. What about Social Security and Medicare, which everyone pays into? Or the minimum wage? Or healthcare? Or money for tuition?

The bottom line is that the press does not exist, as David Brooks seemed to claim, to reinforce the believed moral superiority of liberals. Or if it does, it is doing a terrible job.

[Sorry to interrupt the discussion..]

Right now, comments appear to the problem: each of the posts uses more and more bandwidth because of the size of the comment section. We may need to limit comment length, or not include the comments with the post unless requested.

Isn't the last bit the case now? I mean, you have to click on the "Comments" link underneath the post to see them, in a popup window, at least on browsers I've used. Anyway, I've said before and will say again, I think the comments section makes the site for many people. (And the original posts make the comments section, mind you, so we DO appreciate your work. ;) I understand that bandwidth costs money, but is it THAT much (relative to other things)? I guess it's up to you to decide whether it's worth the higher level of readership the comments section brings you.

I acknowledge that our military is disproportionately from states that tend to vote republican, and that the states which make my food tend to do the same. But if these states are so self-sufficient, why do they tend to draw much more federal funding than they pay in taxes, while "blue" states tend to do the opposite?

In addition to the other factors already discussed, we could make an argument that the market price for the goods/services/resources produced in the "red" states is artificially depressed by some third factor. The taxation welath transfer from "blue" states then has the effect of equalizing the price discrepancy.

Of course, perhaps the availability of supplemental funds via wealth transfer is the factor that keeps prices depressed, which would be an interesting circularity, although I doubt the real picture is that simple. (I'm sure an argument against ag subsidies is to be found in there somewhere, though.)

Nonetheless, the fact remains that if the provisions from the (frequently rural) "red" states were to suddenly collapse, most of the (frequently urban) "blue" states would be in a heap of trouble. In the extreme case, urban areas cannot self-sustain; rural areas can, although obviously the loss of an external market would mean a drop in the standard of living.

The red state / blue state thing is coming close to assuming stereotype powers. For an antidote, check out some higher-resolution maps:

http://www.princeton.edu/~rvdb/JAVA/election2004/

and the ones here plot the area of the counties proportional to their population:

http://www.research.att.com/%7Esuresh/cartogram/

Remember, life's not just a bowl of cherries and blueberries! ;-)

Comments are Closed.